High School - Gateway 1
Back to High School Overview
Note on review tool versions
See the series overview page to confirm the review tool version used to create this report.
- Our current review tool version is 2.0. Learn more
- Reports conducted using earlier review tools (v1.0 and v1.5) contain valuable insights but may not fully align with our current instructional priorities. Read our guide to using earlier reports and review tools
Loading navigation...
Designed for NGSS
Gateway 1 - Meets Expectations | 94% |
|---|---|
Criterion 1.1: Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning | 15 / 16 |
Criterion 1.2: Three-Dimensional Learning and Assessment | 17 / 18 |
The materials meet expectations for Gateway 1 by consistently using phenomena and problems to drive instruction across all units. Phenomena and problems are introduced early—often in the first lesson—and revisited regularly through modeling, investigations, data analysis, and explanation tasks. These experiences require engagement with grade-band Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs), and are clearly presented using various media. While student ideas are frequently elicited, particularly at the start of lesson sets, the materials are inconsistent in how those ideas are leveraged to shape instruction. In some cases, learning is more activity-driven than anchored in the phenomenon or problem.
The materials also integrate the three dimensions of the NGSS into lesson objectives, instructional tasks, and assessments. Students have consistent opportunities to engage in sensemaking with DCIs, Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs), and Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs), often revising their thinking through tools like Driving Question Boards and model updates. Lesson objectives are generally three-dimensional, but not all elements in these objectives are fully addressed in instruction or assessments. The assessment system includes a wide variety of formative and summative tasks, including Transfer Tasks and Exit Tickets that often incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems. While assessments are largely aligned to targeted learning objectives, not all elements identified for instruction are always directly assessed.
Criterion 1.1: Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning
Information on Multilingual Learner (MLL) Supports in This Criterion
For some indicators in this criterion, we also display evidence and scores for pair MLL indicators.
While MLL indicators are scored, these scores are reported separately from core content scores. MLL scores do not currently impact core content scores at any level—whether indicator, criterion, gateway, or series.
To view all MLL evidence and scores for this grade band or grade level, select the "Multilingual Learner Supports" view from the left navigation panel.
Materials leverage science phenomena and engineering problems in the context of driving learning and student performance.
The materials meet expectations for Criterion 1.1 by consistently incorporating observable phenomena and relevant problems to drive instruction across units. Phenomena and problems are introduced early in the unit, typically in Lesson 1, and revisited throughout subsequent lessons. These experiences require students to engage with grade-appropriate Disciplinary Core Ideas, often through investigations, data analysis, readings, and modeling tasks. The presentation of phenomena and problems is clear and direct, utilizing varied media such as images, maps, videos, and demonstrations to support student engagement and understanding.
However, the materials are less consistent in how they leverage students’ prior knowledge and experiences. While there are regular opportunities to elicit students’ ideas—especially at the beginning of a lesson set—these ideas are not consistently used to inform instruction or shape learning tasks. Phenomena and problems generally serve as the central focus of lessons and provide a basis for three-dimensional learning, though in some cases, learning is driven more by specific activities or science content rather than the phenomenon or problem itself.
Indicator 1a
Materials are designed to include both phenomena and problems.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials are designed to include both phenomena and problems.
Phenomena and problems are typically introduced at the start of a unit in Lesson 1 or at the start of a learning sequence. The rest of the unit connects or references the learning sequence-level phenomenon or problem in some way. Phenomena are framed as observable events and not immediately explained after they are presented. Students are provided with videos, data sets, and readings that help them develop an understanding of the phenomenon, and there is usually an opportunity to discuss related phenomena. Problems are presented either as a challenge to be solved or as a need to be addressed. There is extensive context provided for problems and students have the opportunity to develop solutions of their choosing, although a “best” solution may be obvious in some cases. Nearly all lessons in a unit return to the phenomenon or problem, although the degree to which they return varies. Some lessons are very closely linked to the phenomena or problem, while the connection for other lessons is simply a mention of the Driving Question Board (DQB) or Progress Tracker at the end of the lesson. Phenomena introduced in the middle of a unit are typically presented more briefly than unit-level phenomena and are connected to one lesson or a series of lessons.
Examples of phenomena in the materials:
In Unit C.1: How can we slow the flow of energy on Earth to protect vulnerable coastal communities?, the phenomenon is that sea levels continue to rise around the world and many coastal communities are experiencing the effects. Across the unit, students investigate the effect of changes in energy in the Earth system on sea level and coastal communities. In Lesson Set 1, students examine historical data and investigate the relationship between carbon dioxide and warming temperatures. After investigating the effect of melting land and sea ice on sea level, students investigate a specific glacier and compare two proposed solutions to slow its melt. In Lesson Set 2, they investigate the effectiveness of microbeads and related feedback loops, and in Lesson Set 3, they investigate the ways in which a berm alters the flow of energy at the ocean-glacier interface. Students conclude the unit by reading about climate modeling and proposed solutions for addressing sea level rise.
In Unit C.2: What causes lightning and why are some places safer than others when it strikes?, the phenomenon is that lightning strikes do not happen evenly around the world, and there are conditions that favor occurrence and frequency. Across the unit, students investigate the conditions necessary for lightning strikes to occur. In Lesson 1, students observe real-time and slow-motion videos of lightning and share their own experiences and understanding of lightning. Throughout Lesson Sets 1 and 2, students observe a small-scale model of a lightning system and investigate the relationship between lightning and static electricity. Students develop ideas around static interactions, electrostatic forces, and partial charges. Students revise their models of the lightning system at the end of each lesson set. In Lesson Set 3, students analyze data about the amount of energy that moves during a lightning strike and model how electrons move between clouds and the ground. In Lesson Set 4, students read about lightning safety and investigate the effect of dissolved salts on conductivity.
Examples of problems in the materials:
In Unit C.4: Why are oysters dying, and how can we use chemistry to protect them?, the problem is that oysters in the Pacific Northwest are dying off. Across the unit, students explore the scope of the problem of oyster die-off from multiple perspectives, engage in multiple lines of thinking as to the cause of the problem, and model the best line of reasoning for the problem. After exploring the problem in Lesson Set 1, students investigate the effect atmospheric carbon dioxide has on ocean pH and what can neutralize acids. Then they apply what they have figured out to draft a set of criteria and constraints for potential solutions. In Lesson Set 2, students examine what processes, both large and small-scale, impact the acidity of water. In Lesson Set 3, students brainstorm possible solutions and then collect data through investigations, data sets and research to select the solution that best fits the criteria and constraints developed throughout the unit.
In Unit C.5: How can chemistry help us evaluate fuels and transportation options to benefit the Earth and our communities?, the problem is that while carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation have declined, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation have not changed much in recent years. After exploring the problem in Lesson Set 1, students investigate energy flows at the macro- and micro-scale with a focus on combustion engines. In Lesson Set 2, through investigations, simulations, model building, and research, students add non carbon-based fuels to their exploration of energy flow. In Lesson Set 3, through a variety of scenarios, values analysis, Gotta-Have-It Checklists, and consensus criteria and constraint lists, students select the five most promising fuels and transportation options for the future. They analyze each of the five fuels and create a final design proposal explaining their chosen transportation goal and solution, including criteria, constraints, and impact.
Indicator 1a.MLL-1
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in grade-level learning of phenomena as included in the materials.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in grade-level learning of phenomena. Materials provide strategies and supports for MLLs to participate in grade-level learning of phenomena as included in the materials, but these supports do not consistently provide for full and complete participation by all MLL students.
The materials partially provide content-specific strategies for supporting MLL students with engaging in grade-level instruction and negotiating meaning. For example, in Unit C.2, Lesson 3, the unit-level phenomenon is that lightning strikes do not happen evenly around the world, there are conditions that favor occurrence and frequency. In the Teacher Edition, section 7- Navigate, students engage in a turn and talk and then a group share out regarding related phenomena, answering the question, “What other phenomena have you
experienced that produced interactions like those we observed in the water dropper system? For example: attractive or repulsive forces at a distance, small sparks or shocks.” There is an Attending to Equity sidebar for the teacher that states, “Students may not use or know the term ‘static electricity’. However, many students will have experienced it and may refer to the phenomenon using other terms. Make sure the class agrees upon a term for the interactions they see as encapsulating all of the interactions they have observed, such as ‘when objects become charged and interact with each other,’ and encourage students to write those terms in their notebooks.” There is also a prompt to encourage students to write the terms in their notebooks. This example explicitly supports sensemaking by prompting students to brainstorm a related phenomenon and includes guidance for negotiating the meaning of ‘static electricity’. However, it lacks the linguistic scaffolds that would enable multilingual learners to fully engage in this opportunity to use and develop language.
Specifically, in Unit C.2, Lesson 8 Teacher Edition, the lesson ends with applying what was learned about polarization to explain how charged particles in clouds become attracted to the ground during lightning. The unit-level phenomenon is that lightning strikes do not happen evenly around the world, there are conditions that favor occurrence and frequency. Moreover, in Unit C.2, Lesson 8, Teacher Edition, section 5. Name Terms and Update Personal Glossaries, as students are building their understanding about partial charge, polarization, and induced polarization, there is guidance for all students to develop personal glossaries by creating an accessible definition. This guidance encourages teachers to support students in negotiating the meaning of key vocabulary related to the phenomenon; however, it is limited to individual words and does not extend to broader language structures or forms essential for deeper understanding.
The materials provide opportunities for MLLs to engage in structured academic discourse with teachers and peers to build conceptual understandings and disciplinary language use. For example, in Unit C.1, Lesson 2, Teacher Edition, section 11- Construct an Argument About the Cause of Ice Melt, students continue to work to explain the unit-level phenomenon about sea level rise by calculating the effect of heat flowing from water to the glacier. As students are constructing an argument about the causes of ice melting, there is guidance for the teacher in the Collaboration callout to “Alternatively, give students a few minutes to begin Data Analysis individually or with a partner, then use the peer feedback protocols described in the OpenSciEd High School Teacher Handbook to give each other feedback.” Although there are embedded sentence starters within the Teacher Handbook for peer feedback such as, “We agree that . We think you should add more evidence from the investigation,” and both productive and nonproductive examples, the presence of the protocols in a separate, unlinked, document requires teachers to consult multiple resources, limiting the ease of implementation.
While the materials occasionally encourage MLL students to use interdisciplinary words and phrases, they lack explicit connections or support to help students understand and apply them effectively. Specifically, in Unit C.1, Lesson 8, Teacher Edition, students return to the unit-level phenomenon about sea level rise. Students learn about Inuit knowledge and NASA programs studying glaciers in Greenland, and how bathymetry changes the temperature of the water glaciers touch. Students then discuss how a berm would affect the flow of matter and energy, and how reducing carbon dioxide emissions would affect the flow of energy. In Unit C.1, Lesson 8 Teacher Edition, Additional Teacher Guidance, Supporting Students in Making Connections in ELA, there is a connection pointed out that a key interdisciplinary skill in this lesson is comparing and contrasting, including the literacy standard it is addressing. This type of ELA connection is present in other lessons. However, the materials miss the opportunity to consistently make this connection explicit to students. Although the materials do not always explicitly connect for students the use of words and phrases in the content and their interdisciplinary use, they include effective strategies such as ELA and math connections, which demonstrate a thoughtful approach to interdisciplinary language acquisition by connecting language and skills in the lessons to standards outside of science.
The materials sometimes support MLL students’ meaning-making of vocabulary in context. For example, in Unit C.1, Lesson 3, Teacher Edition, students engage with the unit-level phenomenon about sea level rise. In Unit C.1, Lesson 3, Teacher Edition, “Reading Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, students expand their understanding of carbon dioxide by doing a reading (with additional pictures, diagrams, etc.). Students encounter variations of the term ‘greenhouse gas’ within the reading. There are prompts to write short summaries of the different reading sections in their science notebook. Although the meaning-making in context supports are for all students and not specific to MLLs, there are Spanish-translated materials, which support some MLLs. Tracing the use of greenhouse gas or greenhouse effect across multiple lessons indicates that the unit is set up to expose and engage with content before defining terms, and is an effective strategy for learning language in context. Students are offered many different exposures to the terms in multiple modalities, demonstrating a thoughtful approach to cementing the word’s meaning and supporting the ability to make meaning. Although the materials offer opportunities for students to engage in meaning-making within context, an important factor in supporting MLL access, they lack sufficient linguistic supports to ensure full and complete participation.
Supports for listening, discourse, and vocabulary in context are uneven and sometimes missing. Scaffolds are often general and not woven into core task design. Supports do not target the full range of language proficiency levels, like advanced MLLs and students at bridging proficiency levels. Opportunities to distinguish everyday from scientific language and to support interdisciplinary academic language use are underdeveloped.
Indicator 1a.MLL-2
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in grade-level learning of problems as included in the materials.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners' (MLLs’) full and complete participation in grade-level learning of problems. Materials provide strategies and supports for MLLs to participate in grade-level learning of problems as included in the materials, but these supports do not consistently provide for full and complete participation by all MLL students.
The materials sometimes provide strategies, appropriate support, and accommodations that will foster MLL students' participation. For example, in Unit C.4, Lesson 5 Teacher Edition, the lesson ends with a class discussion returning to the problem of oyster die-offs and connecting the learning about the carbon cycle to the problem. The Attending to Equity sidebar highlights the importance of giving individual wait time before asking students to respond verbally. This strategy reminds teachers to allow all students to process ideas and make prior connections before sharing and working through ideas with peers. However, it does not provide linguistic support to allow for full and complete participation in the content.
The materials provide content-specific strategies for supporting MLL students with engaging in grade-level instruction and negotiating meaning, but miss the opportunity to include supports and scaffolds that help students navigate complex academic conversations and use of precise disciplinary language. For example, in Unit C.4, Lesson 1, students watch videos of a member of the Swinomish Tribal Community in the Pacific Northwest and learn about “first foods” and the role of the oyster in the tribe’s history. Students learn about problems in baby oyster die-offs in oyster hatcheries from an expert and predict the cause of oyster die-offs in the Pacific Northwest. In Unit C.4, Lesson 3 Teacher Edition, part 6. Read About pH Scale, there is a reading about pH with infographics, bolded vocabulary words, and intentional chunking of the text with headings in the form of questions. Text engineering is present in similar readings, maintaining the academic challenge of the readings alongside complex language. In addition, the Connect, Extend, Question Handout is a reading protocol that includes a graphic organizer to help students synthesize their learning and then compare their responses to a partner’s. Although the handout may support students in engaging in the reading, it does not provide linguistic supports for MLLs to access the reading.
The materials provide targeted opportunities for MLL students to use and develop language, but the linguistic supports for MLLs are lacking. Specifically, in Unit C.3, Lesson 1, students investigate the problem of humans who want to establish settlements on other planetary bodies, but have difficulty transporting everything needed due to distance and fuel constraints. In Unit C.3, Lesson 1, the Slides and Student Procedure define each time the students engage in academic discourse through whole group, and partner turn and talks. The prompts often ask students to listen and be able to co-construct meaning. Although the materials provide opportunities for MLLs to use and develop language through individual think time, followed by partner talk and a Scientist Circle, no linguistic supports are provided in this lesson to ensure MLLs’ full and complete participation in the activities.
The materials provide opportunities for MLLs to engage in structured academic discourse with teachers and peers to build conceptual understandings and disciplinary language use. For example, in Unit C.3, Lesson 2, there is a reference to the need to create substitutes for various medications and supplies that could be applied to the problem of humans wanting to establish settlements on other planetary bodies. In Unit C.3, Lesson 2, Teacher Edition, part 5. Prepare to Share Station Findings, students collaborate with peers to develop a conceptual understanding of water’s properties, then share their findings with the class. There is also teacher guidance to “offer chart paper and chart paper markers to groups if they wish to communicate station information visually,” and observe groups who may not understand each other: offering advice on how to model the vocabulary, clarifying questions to ask, etc. Specifically, in section 8. Discuss Station Findings, in the Additional Guidance, it states, “If students share terms that others may not be familiar with, ask clarifying questions or prompt students to explain the terms. Again, those terms may be: adhesion, capillary action, cohesion, specific heat, and surface tension. If students use those terms, spend a moment discussing a definition for them and then encourage students to add them to their Personal Glossaries…” Although the materials provide opportunities for collaboration with peers and guidance, such as offering chart paper to support speaking with visuals and Personal Glossaries, there is a missed opportunity to intentionally support academic language development through structured routines, differentiated scaffolds, and explicit instruction in language functions and forms.
The materials sometimes support MLL students’ meaning-making of vocabulary in context. For example, in Unit C.5, Lesson 1, students discuss solutions to the problem that, while carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation have declined, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation have not changed much in recent years. In Unit C.5, Unit Overview, Guidance for Personal Glossaries, the teacher guide has a note that states “students will co-construct a definition for the following word, which they should add to their personal glossaries: carbon-based fuels. Do not ask students to define or keep track of any words until your class has developed a shared understanding of their meaning.” In every unit, there is a personal glossary opportunity that demonstrates effective support for students with meaning-making in context; however, there is a missed opportunity to provide MLL-specific support for the personal glossaries. While the general practice of personal glossaries with co-constructed definitions is a good instructional approach for vocabulary, it falls short for MLLs by not incorporating explicit, targeted linguistic supports and strategies that address their specific needs in acquiring academic language. This limits the "full and complete participation in grade-level learning" for MLLs by not sufficiently scaffolding their language development, despite attempting to support content meaning.
While the materials incorporate real-world phenomena and offer some strategies, such as personal glossaries, visual aids, and structured peer discussions, to promote access and engagement, they do not consistently integrate linguistic supports necessary for MLLs to fully engage with content. Opportunities for individual think time, partner talk, and collaborative discussions are present, yet lack the differentiated scaffolds, structured routines, and explicit instruction in language functions needed to develop academic language. Although elements like text engineering, infographics, and equity-based guidance appear throughout, these features rarely extend to targeted language development support. As a result, MLLs may participate in classroom activities but are not fully equipped to access or express their understanding in rigorous, content-rich tasks.
Indicator 1b
Phenomena and/or problems require student use of grade-band Disciplinary Core Ideas.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that phenomena or problems require student use of grade-band Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs).
Across the program, students engage with a DCI during the introduction of the phenomenon or problem in Lesson 1 and then return to the DCI throughout the lessons in the lesson set. The materials use multiple structures to engage students in the DCI connected to the phenomenon or problem including readings, case studies, discussions, data, graphs, tables, and charts.
Examples of phenomena or problems that require student use of grade-band DCIs:
In Unit C.1: How can we slow the flow of energy on Earth to protect vulnerable coastal communities?, the phenomenon is that sea levels continue to rise around the world and many coastal communities are experiencing the effects. Across the unit, students examine sea level rise around the world and discuss the response of human communities, including moving away. Then students examine historical data about sea level rise, looking for patterns and support for the argument that people have dealt with sea level rise before (DCI-ESS3.B-H1). Next, students use mathematical tools to consider the human impacts of 0.5 m of sea level rise and use a computational model, which includes the impact on human migration, to test questions about how humans impact Earth systems (DCI-ESS3.B-H1).
In Unit C.3: How can we find, make, and recycle the substances we need to live on and beyond Earth?, the problem is that humans want to establish settlements on other planetary bodies, but cannot transport everything needed due to distance and fuel constraints, so essential materials will need to be synthesized. Across the unit, students explore the importance of different materials and whether or not they can be created. Students investigate properties of water and other liquids, highlighting water's uniqueness and why it is such an essential substance when building a new society outside of Earth. Then students predict what other elements and substances could substitute for water and other essential compounds based on their new understanding of atomic structure and the periodic table. They use a simulation to test out hydrogen sulfide and compare it to water (DCI-PS1.B-H3). Next, students model how water is involved in chemical reactions to produce new substances and how this information could be utilized on Mars (DCI-PS1.B-H3). Finally, students read about sustainable material technology such as 3-D printing and bioplastics. They discuss how these technologies could be used in establishing a settlement beyond Earth (DCI-ESS3.C-H2).
In Unit C.5: How can chemistry help us evaluate fuels and transportation options to benefit the Earth and our communities?, the problem is that while carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation have declined, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation have not changed much in recent years. Students develop and use models to explain energy transfers and forces during combustion reactions in vehicles and investigate combustion reactions at the molecular level (DCI-PS3.A-H4). Then students use models to investigate bond formation with consideration to the forces involved and energy changes. They consider the pros and cons of fossil fuels and biofuels (DCI-PS3.A-H4, DCI-ESS3.C-H2). Students use models and simulations to investigate the role of kinetic energy of the particles and the energy stored in fields as bonds break and form and construct arguments about bonds, energy, and forces to support their reasoning for why some fuels release more energy than others (DCI-PS3.A-H2, DCI-PS3.A-H4, and DCI-ESS3.C-H2). Students compare hydrogen fuel to batteries as energy sources for engines. They consider the environmental impact of hydrogen fuel as well as current uses of nuclear energy in powering transportation and as an energy source (DCI-PS3.A-H2, DCI-PS3.A-H4, and DCI-ESS3.C-H2).
Indicator 1c
Phenomena and/or problems are presented in a direct manner to students.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that phenomena and/or problems are presented in a direct manner to students.
Phenomena and problems are introduced in the first lesson of the unit. The presentations of phenomena and problems vary in format and include images, maps, videos, teacher demonstrations, and readings. They include structures that support students to wonder, ask questions, and lead their own investigations in order to explain the phenomenon or solve the problem. One exception occurs in Unit C.3, where students watch a NASA video about plans to establish human settlements on the Moon and Mars. The video introduces the Artemis Team and highlights that returning to the Moon is “for the benefit of all.” While it implies challenges, it does not explicitly help students connect to the core problem: humans must synthesize essential materials on-site due to limits on transport caused by distance and fuel constraints.
Examples of phenomena or problems that are presented in a direct manner to students:
In Unit C.1: How can we slow the flow of energy on Earth to protect vulnerable coastal communities?, the phenomenon is that sea levels continue to rise around the world and many coastal communities are experiencing the effects. In Lesson 1, students view a map that highlights the locations of three coastal communities around the world. They watch videos about each of the communities that show the land and people of the community as well as describe how rising water levels have changed the community over time. Students then view graphs, images, and data on sea level rise around the world. The videos and graphical representations provide students the opportunity to engage with the phenomenon directly without assuming any prior understanding or providing distracting information.
In Unit C.4: Why are oysters dying, and how can we use chemistry to protect them?, the problem is that, in the Pacific Northwest, oysters are dying off. In Lesson 1, students watch videos of a member of the Swinomish Tribal Community in the Pacific Northwest, learn about "first foods" and the role of the oyster in the history of the tribe, and watch a video from a scientist to learn about problems in baby oyster die offs in oyster hatcheries. Students predict the cause of oyster die-offs in the Pacific Northwest, examine and evaluate data on potential causes of oyster die-offs with a focus on acidity, pollution, temperature and carbon dioxide, and then discuss what they believe to be the possible causes of the die-offs based on their explorations. They learn more about oyster conservation efforts by reading an article and then develop a model that shows why oysters are dying off. The videos, data, and reading provide students the opportunity to engage with the problem directly without assuming any prior understanding or providing distracting information.
In Unit C.5: How can chemistry help us evaluate fuels and transportation options to benefit Earth and our communities?, the problem is that while carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation have declined, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation have not changed much in recent years. In Lesson 1, students are provided with carbon dioxide emissions data by sector displayed in a graph, followed by per capita emissions data, highlighting the fact that the US has the highest per capita emissions of the world. Next students review a graph of transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions by mode of transportation, including personal vehicles. Students then read through fuel data cards for different vehicle fuels. The cards include images, chemical formulas, and graphs showing percentage of total fuel used. The data, graphs, and cards provide students the opportunity to engage with the problem directly without assuming any prior understanding or providing distracting information.
Indicator 1d
Materials intentionally leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences related to phenomena or problems.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet expectations that materials intentionally leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences related to phenomena or problems.
Across the program, eliciting is most consistently present in the first lesson of each lesson set, typically when a new phenomenon or problem is introduced. These lessons often include structured activities such as Driving Question Board (DQB) prompts, whole-class discussions, or initial model creation that allow students to share what they already know or wonder about the phenomenon or problem. Through Related Phenomena activities, students are given an opportunity to share related phenomena they have had experience with in their lives as related to the presented phenomenon or problem. Home Learning activities also provide options for elicitation of students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences when students draw on funds of knowledge from their own families and communities as related to the presented phenomenon or problem. Other instances of eliciting include independent reflection opportunities and turn and talk options that provide a space for students to share their experiences. Leveraging is present inconsistently. When leveraging is present, it usually takes place close to when eliciting happens. In other instances, there is no clear or intentional use of students’ prior knowledge and/or experience to guide instruction, modify tasks, or support new learning. In some cases, the term “elicit” is present in the materials and refers to asking for student responses, not necessarily connected to students’ prior knowledge or experiences.
Example where materials elicit and leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experience related to phenomena and problems:
In Unit C.2: What causes lightning and why are some places safer than others when it strikes?, the phenomenon is that lightning strikes do not happen evenly around the world, there are conditions that favor occurrence and frequency. Students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences of the phenomenon are elicited multiple times in Lesson 1, and again in Lesson 12 where it is leveraged. In Lesson 1, students are asked, "What do you know about lightning? What stories, family history, or mythology have you heard about lightning? How do these stories help us make sense of lightning and its role in the world around us?" Prior to developing the Driving Question Board, they are asked, "When and where have you experienced lightning? Something similar to lightning? What signals do you use to decide to protect yourself against the storm? How does where you are determine how you stay safe?" In Lesson 12, students are asked, "Think about a time when you had to take shelter during a lightning storm. Where were you? Where did you go? Do you think it was safe? Why or why not?" Students then obtain information about lightning strikes through a data station activity. Then the materials tell the students, "Look back to the structure you shared about earlier in class. After what you have learned at the data stations, reflect on your choice of shelter. Would you make the same decision about where to go during a lightning storm? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence from the data stations." In this lesson, students use their prior knowledge and experiences with lightning to process and apply information about lightning safety.
Example where materials elicit but do not leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experience related to phenomena and problems:
In Unit C.1: How can we slow the flow of energy on Earth to protect vulnerable coastal communities?, the phenomenon is that sea levels continue to rise around the world and many coastal communities are experiencing the effects. Students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences of the phenomenon are elicited in Lesson 1 when, during a Related Phenomena activity, students turn and talk to discuss the following prompts, “What other examples have you encountered where the level of water changed over time? What do you think caused those changes? Do you think people have encountered sea level rise before? How much of Earth is water? Where is all the water located?” While the lesson demonstrates eliciting prior knowledge and/or experience from students about water levels and sea level rise, the materials within the learning sequence do not support the teacher to leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences.
Indicator 1e
Phenomena and/or problems drive student learning using key elements of all three dimensions.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that phenomena and/or problems drive student learning using key elements of all three dimensions.
Across the program, phenomena and problems consistently drive student learning with most lessons being driven by the phenomenon or problem presented at the beginning of the unit. In some units, the connection to the phenomenon or problem in each lesson is clear and explicit. In some cases, the focus of the entire lesson is the phenomenon or problem and in other cases, the phenomenon or problem is introduced at the beginning of the lesson and returned to at the end of the lesson. Most lessons that are driven by phenomena or problems are three dimensional. In lessons where the phenomenon or problem is not driving, a science concept related to the phenomenon or problem is the focus. The connection to the phenomenon or problem is unclear and in some instances, lessons are connected to each other in terms of progressions of science concepts related to answering questions on the driving question board, but there is no reference to the phenomenon or problem for multiple lessons.
Examples where phenomena or problems drive individual lessons using all three dimensions:
In Unit C.1, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 4: What would happen if the Earth's ice melted?, the phenomenon that sea levels continue to rise around the world and many coastal communities are experiencing the effects drives instruction. Students develop an initial model about melting ice and sea level rise, then develop a mathematical model (SEP-MATH-H5) to calculate the volume of land ice in Greenland and Antarctica, and the resulting sea level rise if those ice sheets melted. Students then investigate the effects of melting sea ice vs. melting land ice (SEP-INV-H1) and revise their model for sea level rise, taking into consideration the movement of water between systems (CCC-SYS-H2) such as the cryosphere and hydrosphere, and land and the oceans. Finally, students examine the impact of sea level rise on human populations (DCI-ESS3.B-H1).
In Unit C.3, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 5: How can we tell what is in the atmosphere (and just below the surface) of objects in space?, the problem that humans want to establish settlements on other planetary bodies, but cannot transport everything needed due to distance and fuel constraints, so essential materials will need to be synthesized drives instruction. At the beginning of the lesson, students review what they figured out about finding water on Mars and consider what other substances they will need on a mission to space. They decide to investigate how to determine what substances are in an atmosphere as a next step. Students engage in a diffraction demonstration, graph relative light intensity versus color, analyze transmission spectra of different gases (DCI-PS4.B-H4, SEP-DATA-H1), and use the information about gas spectra to analyze spectra for space object atmospheres (DCI-ESS1.A-H2, CCC-PAT-H5). Students end the lesson by reading about other ways to find water with spectroscopy (SEP-INFO-H2) and consider the use of these other ways in order to detect the presence of substances they need for survival when those substances may not be readily available in the atmosphere.
In Unit C.5, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 4: Why do we need to put energy into the system to start the reaction?, the problem that while carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation have declined, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation have not changed much in recent years drives instruction. At the start of this lesson, students discuss the questions, "What have we figured out so far about gasoline, diesel, and other carbon-based fuels? How might answering those questions help us think about our future transportation system?” Through a discussion, students examine the observation that energy is required in combustion and diesel engine cylinders in order for fuel to react with oxygen. Then, students use a 3D collision model with marbles and a computer simulation to investigate and quantify how energy is used to break bonds in molecules (DCI-PS1.B-H1, SEP-MOD-H3, and CCC-EM-H2). Students use modeling to connect the idea of energy in chemical bonds with the energy between electric fields (from an earlier unit) (DCI-PS1.A-H4, DCI-PS3.C-H1, SEP-MOD-H3, and CCC-EM-H2). At the end of the lesson, students map what they have observed during their investigation to the behavior of bonds between atoms and how energy flows through the cylinders of carbon-based fuel engines.
Criterion 1.2: Three-Dimensional Learning and Assessment
Information on Multilingual Learner (MLL) Supports in This Criterion
For some indicators in this criterion, we also display evidence and scores for pair MLL indicators.
While MLL indicators are scored, these scores are reported separately from core content scores. MLL scores do not currently impact core content scores at any level—whether indicator, criterion, gateway, or series.
To view all MLL evidence and scores for this grade band or grade level, select the "Multilingual Learner Supports" view from the left navigation panel.
Materials are designed for three-dimensional learning and assessment.
The materials meet expectations for Criterion 1.2 by integrating the three dimensions of the NGSS into student learning, lesson objectives, and assessments. All units consistently include learning opportunities where students engage with Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts through investigations, modeling, data analysis, and explanations. Lessons support meaningful student sensemaking with the three dimensions, and students are provided multiple opportunities to iterate on their ideas using tools like progress trackers, Driving Question Boards, and model revisions.
Lesson-level learning objectives are clearly labeled and generally three-dimensional, though the materials only partially meet expectations because not all elements from each objective are consistently addressed in instruction. The formative assessment system is well-structured and varied, revealing student progress through multiple formats such as exit tickets, models, and checklists, though not every lesson contains an assessment and not all claimed elements are always assessed. Summative assessments—including Transfer Tasks and exit tickets—are aligned to claimed standards and elicit direct, observable evidence of student learning. However, there is some inconsistency between the elements identified for learning, in learning objectives, and those directly assessed. These assessments frequently incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems, requiring students to apply their understanding in new contexts while engaging with all three dimensions.
Indicator 1f
Materials are designed to incorporate the three dimensions in student learning opportunities.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials are designed to incorporate the three dimensions in student learning opportunities.
Across the materials, every learning sequence contains at least one learning opportunity that incorporates all three dimensions. The activities that incorporate all three dimensions vary, including investigations and models (computer simulations, mathematical models, and student-created models). Across the course, elements from the SEP of Developing and Using Models and the CCC of Energy and Matter are most common.
Examples of learning opportunities in which elements of all three dimensions are incorporated:
In Unit C.1, Lesson Set 3, Lesson 10: How can we measure the energy transfer a berm prevents?, students plan and conduct physical and simulated investigations to collect data and build a model representing the mathematical relationship between mass, temperature change, and energy transfer in the ocean-glacier system. Students plan an investigation using water samples of different masses and temperatures to explore the relationship between mass, temperature change, and energy transfer. They consider two different plans for how to conduct trials and individually construct drafts of their procedures (SEP-INV-H2). They discuss patterns in their results then plan and conduct an investigation to collect additional data using a simulation of energy transfer (CCC-EM-H3) between solid objects (DCI-PS3.A-H1). After further discussion and data analysis, students return to the simulation to investigate the energy transfer between solids and gases, collect data, and work as a class to develop a mathematical model for the relationship between mass, temperature change, and energy transfer (SEP-MATH-H4, CCC-EM-H3).
In Unit C.3, Lesson Set 3, Lesson 10: Why do we need water in so many reactions?, students observe features of Earth then look at images from the Moon and Mars to determine if there is evidence of water. Students observe satellite images of the Earth and examine how water has affected land features over time (DCI-ESS1.C-H2). They look for patterns to develop a profile of how water can change surface features on a planet’s or rocks’ surface (CCC-PAT-H1). Students make predictions to investigate if other liquids could make the same patterns based on the evidence they currently have examined (SEP-ARG-H5, CCC-PAT-H1).
In Unit C.4, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 11: How can we help oysters build shells quickly?, students investigate what conditions can speed up the reaction that results in oyster shell formation. Students conduct an investigation and collect data to determine that increasing the reactants and the temperature speeds up the reaction that builds oyster shells (SEP-INV-H1). They build an explanation for the observation that temperature affects particle motion and increased concentration means more particles to collide and form bonds (CCC-SC-H1, CCC-SC-H2, and DCI-PS1.B-H1).
Indicator 1g
Materials consistently support meaningful student sensemaking with the three dimensions.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials consistently support meaningful student sensemaking with the three dimensions.
Across the program, the materials consistently provide students with opportunities to build understanding of disciplinary content through use of SEPs and/or CCCs. Students engage in sensemaking activities in a variety of ways including small group and whole class discussions, investigation debriefs, and working with computation. Students are presented with opportunities to engage in sensemaking activities with elements of all three dimensions in at least one learning sequence per unit. Elements of all three dimensions are integrated consistently in learning sequences. Opportunities for students to iterate on their thinking as they engage in sensemaking are also consistently present and happen in a variety of ways including through revision of models, driving question boards (DQB), progress trackers, and charts/posters related to scientific concepts. Specifically, the M-E-F poster spans across units as students connect the concepts of matter, energy, and force.
Examples where the materials are designed for the three dimensions to meaningfully support student sensemaking and provide opportunities for students to iterate on their thinking:
In Unit C.2, Lesson Set 3: How and why does a lightning strike transfer so much energy?, students figure out where the energy in lightning comes from and how that energy is transferred in a lightning strike. Students use a computational model to explore where energy comes from when objects attract or repel another object to conclude that the energy in lightning is stored in fields around charged particles (DCI-PS2.B-H2, SEP-MOD-H4, and CCC-SPQ-H1). Students then use research and models to figure out that energy fields created by storm clouds cause the movement of charges through the air (electrons) resulting in lightning once the electron channel connects with a positive charge on the ground. (DCI-PS1.A-H3, SEP-INFO-H3, and CCC-CE-H2). Students have opportunities to iterate on their thinking when they revisit the M-E-F poster in light of their sticky tape investigations in earlier lessons and revise their M-E-F poster after engaging with a computational model and discussion. Students also return to their lightning models and reflect on the models using their M-E-F lens after receiving feedback from the teacher and through a self-reflection exercise.
In Unit C.3, Lesson Set 2: Why do we need certain types of atoms to create the substances we need?, students identify patterns in the numbers of subatomic particles (especially protons) and of bonds that different elements form and use these patterns to organize the elements. Students explore patterns in the atomic structure of the essential elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen using element cards and discuss the importance of these elements as it relates to sustaining life on Earth (DCI-PS1.A-H1). Students identify patterns in the number of bonds these elements are able to make with other elements to form essential compounds and organize cards into organizational patterns (DCI-PS1.A-H2, CCC-PAT-H5). Then students make an initial atomic model of carbon and use their observations of the patterns of elements to revise their models (SEP-MOD-H1). They use their models and other evidence collected to identify possible substitutes for medicine and compounds (CCC-PAT-H5). Students have opportunities to iterate on their thinking when they give peer feedback on the organizational patterns identified in the element cards. The class also revisits the initial atomic structure models, come to consensus, and revise their atomic structure models based on new evidence.
In Unit C.5, Lesson Set 1: How do carbon-based fuels release energy?, students investigate how carbon-based fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, release energy and make a vehicle move. Students examine the mechanisms that allow internal combustion engines to create movement using a series of diagrams, short videos, and discussions with partners and the whole class. Students then create initial models for how an engine makes a car move, and revise their models based on discussion (SEP-MOD-H3). They consider how changes in matter and transfers of energy are connected to the forces that cause the vehicle to move (CCC-EM-H2). Students then test their ideas by observing ethanol burning in three different conditions; covered, uncovered, and with BTB as an indicator for carbon dioxide production. They work with chemical equations for burning ethanol, gasoline, and other fuels introduced in Lesson 1, demonstrating the rearrangement of atoms into new molecules (DCI-PS1.B-H1). Students have opportunities to iterate on their thinking when, after a discussion of matter, energy, and pressure/volume inside a cylinder, students revise their gasoline model to explain how gasoline is used to provide energy to make a vehicle move.
Indicator 1g.MLL-1
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in sensemaking of the Science and Engineering Practices.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLL’s) full and complete participation in the sensemaking of the Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs). The materials include some supports intended to help MLLs access and engage in SEP-based practices; however, these supports are inconsistently integrated and often lack the explicit guidance needed to ensure full participation by MLLs.
The materials support students in engaging in structured discourse with peers and teachers to build their conceptual understanding while encountering disciplinary language. For example, Unit 2, Lesson 10 focuses on the SEP Developing and Using Models, where students “use models based on evidence to illustrate the relationships” within a system. The Teacher Edition, section 6. Building Understandings Discussion highlights the repeated structure for discourse provided throughout the curriculum; the Teacher Edition begins by guiding teachers to put up a visual prompt slide, explains the purpose/key ideas of the discussion, lists suggested teacher prompts, explains sample student responses, provides an Additional Guidance section for extra connections/points of clarification, then explains the look fors and listen fors and next steps. The look fors and listen fors highlight different targeted aspects of each of the three dimensions, so the teacher can connect the activity with the SEP that students are working on. The key elements of the discussion are modeled and include follow-up interventions to support struggling students further. Although there is an opportunity for discourse within the teacher guidance, it fails to provide any linguistic support. The discussion is also labeled for teachers as an Assessment Opportunity to identify its importance. Although the ‘listen fors’ and ‘look fors’ are aligned with the SEPs, the materials miss an opportunity to offer guidance that supports language development and differentiation across varying levels of English proficiency.
Another notable strength of the materials is supporting students’ meaning-making in context. As seen in C.5 Unit Overview Materials, the targeted disciplinary language is listed for teachers by lesson in the Guidance for Developing Your Personal Glossaries section. This guidance includes targeted academic vocabulary (Definitions We Co-construct) and anticipated non-targeted challenging terms (Definitions We Encounter). The curriculum states, “students will have experiences with and discussions about science ideas before they know the specific vocabulary word that names the idea.” This is seen in C.1, Teacher Editions for Lessons 1-3, which details the introduction, use, and co-constructing of a definition for the terms greenhouse gas/greenhouse effect. Students encounter the terms several times in context during readings, in the slides, from modeled teacher use, in data they analyze, and finally in a class discussion. This evidence shows that guidance aims to support understanding new vocabulary in context while students engage in a range of SEPs, such as Analyzing Data, Constructing Explanations, Designing Solutions, and Developing and Using Models. While engaging with the complex demands of the SEPs, students often run across the terms listed in the Definitions We Encounter section. The anticipated challenge of these terms helps teachers support MLLs in distinguishing the words from more familiar everyday uses of many of these words. Some lessons include additional sidebars to further support differentiating common meanings and technical meanings of language, like clarifying the difference between a “conductor” as used in science versus the “leader of a band” (Unit C.2, Lesson 11, Teacher Edition, 2 - Define Air as an Insulator, Attending to Equity sidebar for Supporting Emergent Multilinguals). However, the lesson guidance is often vague, such as in this lesson where it states, “work with students to distinguish between conductor as defined here versus as the leader of a band or orchestra, and conduct as referring to behavior in formal contexts.” The guidance lacks the explicit guidance to support teacher facilitation.
The materials state that the curricular design supports MLLs through pedagogical routines, and “just-in-time resources” with more activity-specific strategies (Teacher Handbook, Supporting Emerging Multilingual Learners, How does OpenSciEd support EMLs section). In some areas, this guidance is insufficient to support full MLL participation. In the context of SEPs, these mixed supports are present in teacher guidance for intervening based on current student understanding. For example, in C.5, Lesson 8, Answer Key 2 Cold Pack Key/Rubric for the mid-unit assessment, question 5 has students engaging with SEP 2.3 of developing/using models. Specifically, the question prompt in the mid-unit assessment is, “Use the graphs you identified in 4a and 4b as a model to explain how energy transfers caused the temperature change you observed. Focus on the reactant (potassium chloride) and final products (potassium and chloride ions). You may use words and/or drawings in your response.” Within the rubric, there are three columns linked to three levels of response relating to 3D Elements, an example response for each level, and “Feedback/What to Do” based on the example response. The guidance states that students with “Foundation Pieces” of this SEP may simply “reference” classroom evidence without citing specific evidence, while a student with “Organized Understanding” would include classroom investigation evidence demonstrating an understanding that “energy is transferred into the fields between particles,” depending on what is happening with the bonds. Depending on the students’ current demonstrated engagement with this SEP, guidance provides teachers with different ideas of “Feedback/What to Do” in response, as determined by the mid-unit assessment. See indicator 3n.MLL. While the guidance is helpful in responding to students in developing content knowledge, it is a missed opportunity to provide support for language development.
Despite many of these planned MLL supports, the materials do not fully support the regular and active participation of all MLL students in the SEPs. For example, SEP tasks rarely include guidance on providing additional context if a student doesn’t understand what is required of them. While speaking and writing tend to be highly structured with clear interventions and guidance for teachers, listening and reading have fewer specific strategies regularly included in lessons. Spanish translations are available for all materials, yet there is no guidance on strategically using these translated materials to amplify English structures/forms or push students to concurrently develop new language skills through leveraging current linguistic abilities. Finally, while targeted language is consistently modeled and presented in context, there are rarely explicit prompts or calls for students to use the new language.
Indicator 1g.MLL-2
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in sensemaking of Disciplinary Core Ideas.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the sensemaking of Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs). The materials include strategies and supports that help MLLs engage in grade-level learning of the DCIs, but the supports are not consistently provided throughout the program.
The materials provide detailed teacher guidance that helps to support the development of MLL content understanding of DCIs through structured discourse with teachers and peers. For example, in Unit C.3, Lesson 10, Teacher Edition, section 3. Read About Removing Metals From Water, students are working on DCI-PS2.B-H3 by reading about contaminated water. After the reading, students participate in a structured class discussion to emphasize key points of the DCI. The materials include question prompting slides (with symbols to indicate the type of discussion for MLLs), suggested prompts, examples of anticipated student responses, and follow-up questions based on responses. The guidance also outlines listen fors and look fors related to the DCI to guide teachers in checking for understanding as the DCI develops. This structured pattern of teacher guidance facilitates MLL engagement with the complex disciplinary task of using language to discuss and develop their DCI understandings. However, there is a missed opportunity to explicitly connect language forms to their intended functions. An example listen for aligned to the DCI and a language function is “Students describe and explain the ways in which the structure of water (polarity) and strength of forces between different ions cause the observed transformation (reaction),” and addresses DCI-PS2.B-H3. This look for is followed by “What to do”, stating “You may assess individual students by collecting Cleaning Metal-Contaminated Water at the end of class and examining their personal summaries. Encourage students to return to the reading during discussion and while modeling to ensure that they are using it as a resource, along with prior force thinking as prompted by the M-E-F poster.” Although the slides for this activity include question prompts, they do not provide language supports to guide students in using the language functions of describing and explaining.
The corresponding reading for Unit C.3, Lesson 10, “Handout Cleaning Metal-Contaminated Water” mentioned in the discussion above, shows evidence for some level of text engineering. These scaffolds support MLLs in engaging with DCIs through amplified text rather than simplified English structures. In this case, the text includes pre-reading guidance for students on what to look for, labeled reading sections, graphics with captions and labels, and embedded reading reflection questions at the end, such as, “Summarize the new information about how the reactions discussed help clean water. Be sure to use your own words, while still giving an accurate meaning.” The consistency of reading supports like this for MLLs varies across the curriculum. For example, in Unit C.3, Lesson 14, there is a reading titled “CO2 Plastics/Bioplastics”. While there are three visuals, one for each “Article” in the reading, it lacks more intentional text engineering to support MLLs’ full participation. The teacher guidance within section 2 - Read About Innovative Materials, prompts teachers to form pairs for the readings and let them select the reading of their choice. However, the materials lack additional supports to engage MLLs in the reading, such as guidance tailored to students’ varying levels of English proficiency.
The materials prioritize MLL language development by presenting new language in context. As previously discussed in 1g.MLL-1, Personal Glossaries outlined in the Unit Overview Materials, are a key tool for supporting MLLs in sensemaking for DCIs. This includes new targeted language (Definitions We Co-Construct) while also anticipating potentially confusing language (Definitions We Encounter). Students have multiple opportunities to engage with new language aligned to DCIs, enhancing their sensemaking of disciplinary content. For example, in Unit C.2, Lessons 2-11 Teacher Editions, students work on understanding conductors vs. insulators. The lesson set begins with engaging students with prior knowledge about ‘metals’ and ‘nonmetals’, provides videos, followed by a class discussion about the role of air to elicit engagement with the conceptual understanding of air as an insulator. A peer-to-peer discussion about conductors/insulators, a whole-class discussion to “co-construct” definitions of the terms, and finally, individual time to add the terms/definitions to their Personal Glossaries. Students engage with DCI-PS1.A-H3 and corresponding language many times before officially ‘recording’ the new vocabulary for later reference. An Attending to Equity sidebar in this section also includes MLL support to differentiate the word conductor in this context vs. the ‘everyday’ use as someone who directs an orchestra (Unit C.2, Lesson 11, Teacher Edition, section 2 - Define Air as an Insulator). Specifically, it states, “The terms insulator and conductor have cognates or near cognates in many Romance languages and serve as the basis for loan words in many other languages. Also work with students to distinguish between conductor as defined here versus as the leader of a band or orchestra, and conduct as referring to behavior in formal contexts.” The Personal Glossaries and vocabulary sidebars are used to reinforce new vocabulary, aligned to DCIs, in context. However, these supports for MLLs are presented to all students intermittently across the curriculum. For example, in Lesson 12, students are introduced to the word bond, which has multiple meanings. However, no guidance is provided to help teachers distinguish between its everyday or root meaning, to bind, and its content-specific use related to atomic interactions.
As described in 1g.MLL-1, many of the planned MLL supports are embedded in the core curriculum without explicit labeling as a support solely for MLLs. The supports appear in various forms, such as Assessment Opportunities (discussions, writing, etc.) with look fors and listen fors that connect with the targeted DCIs, scaffolded rubrics, or Spanish & English versions of all student and teacher materials. Outlined Assessment Opportunities guide teachers to support MLLs through listen fors specific to DCIs while subsequently guiding how to facilitate deeper DCI understanding through additional activities, deeper questioning, student supports, etc. (focus on DCI-ETS1.A-H2 in Unit C.4, Lesson 2, Teacher Edition, 5-Develop an Argument for What to Focus on and Navigate). Similar suggestions for teacher guidance are present in activities with tiered rubrics, as discussed in 1g.MLL-1. Lesson/activity-specific MLL strategies, such as these, are rarely explicitly labeled “for MLLs,” and newer teachers may fail to recognize the role of integrated supports in supporting MLLs. The materials support content access; however, multilingual learners also need opportunities to develop language alongside content, and such integrated supports are not consistently embedded throughout the materials.
While MLLs are partially supported in engaging with the targeted DCIs, the materials fail to fully support the full range of demands required for full MLL participation. For example, while the materials regularly expose students to key language from DCIs in context, they offer few targeted opportunities for students to use that new language to demonstrate their sensemaking. Students may optionally use the modeled vocabulary to describe their understanding of DCIs when updating their Progress Trackers. The Unit Overview Materials for all units state, “The Progress Trackers are thinking tools designed to help students keep track of important discoveries that the class makes while investigating phenomena.” Throughout units, students are prompted to update their Progress Trackers in their notebooks using words or pictures, which builds coherence as students engage in DCIs. However, the guidance lacks linguistic supports that may benefit MLL students. For example, in Unit C.1., Lesson 6 Teacher Edition, section 10- Update Personal Glossaries and Progress Trackers, there are no Attending to Equity sidebars with guidance to support MLLs or sentence frames provided on the slides. This absence of explicit linguistic support is a recurring issue throughout Unit C.1.
While MLLs are given significant linguistic flexibility to express their understanding, the curriculum lacks comprehensive supports to build on their linguistic assets and develop new English language skills or academic language forms. For example, the materials provide Spanish versions of the English content across all lessons. However, the materials do not guide teachers on strategically using the translated versions to engage MLLs and amplify their understanding of complex English structures or forms. Similarly, the Teacher Handbook, Supporting English Language Arts (ELA) section, mentions that having unrestricted access to all the materials in online versions allows MLLs to use support tools such as electronic translators. Similar to the provided Spanish materials, this provides no additional guidance for full MLL participation in understanding DCIs beyond simply accessing the reading.
Indicator 1g.MLL-3
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in sensemaking of Cross Cutting Concepts.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of supporting Multilingual Learners (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the sensemaking of Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs).
As previously discussed in 1g.MLL-1 and 1g.MLL-2, discourse is heavily structured with extra supports in the form of teacher guidance across this curriculum. To support MLL sensemaking of CCCs, the same guidance exists for peer, teacher, or whole class discussions with suggested prompts, anticipated student responses, look for and listen fors (with highlighted sections pointing to the targeted CCC), additional guidance, and follow-up questions to ask students. While CCCs are pointed out in the look fors and listen fors (similar to SEPs or DCIs), there is less targeted guidance on precise follow-up questions or additional activities to develop student understanding of CCCs. An example of this type of guidance is found in the Assessment Opportunity look/listen fors in Unit C.2, Lesson 11 Teacher Edition, section 6- Read About the Effects of Lightning, when teachers are guided to listen for “Students describe the causes of energy transfer at the particle level. (CCC: 2.2)”. In the activity students are reading about the effects of lightning and then engaging in a discussion. Suggested prompts, sample student responses, and follow-up questions are provided to guide teachers in engaging students in discussion. Specifically, examples of suggested prompts related to the CCC of Cause and Effect are “What connections did you notice between matter and energy?”, “How could we show energy transfer as light (radiation) with our energy transfer models?” The What to Do guidance and the Additional Guidance listed for this activity support all students with sensemaking, including connecting the content back to a prior lesson and using both words and models to express their understanding. A specific example of Additional Guidance related to the CCC look-for states, “Additionally, or alternatively, you might work with your paper-clip electrons to model what’s going on: The electrons first start moving quickly closest to the ground where the connection happened, so we see the bright light start there. Then, as the ones ‘behind’ them farther up the channel of ionized air start moving quickly, it brightens there, and so on up toward the cloud.” Although there are suggested models and question prompts to support students with communicating ideas related to describing cause and effect, there is a missed opportunity to provide supports for MLLs, such as sentence frames, or language look fors to support language development of disciplinary and interdisciplinary language.
The materials support student sensemaking of CCCs in context, a practice vital for MLL participation. For example, identifying cause and effect is a key CCC focus in Unit C.2. In Lessons 1-3 Teacher Editions, there is teacher guidance to model this CCC in prompts such as, “how does answering these questions help us figure out what causes lightning?”, listen for related anticipated student responses, like “how can water cause the spark?”, or suggestions from sidebars to guide student engagement with the CCC (“…encourage students to wonder about underlying causes.”). Despite consistently using and modeling key language from this CCC, the materials only occasionally call for students to use the language themselves. Additionally, students are most likely to engage with speaking or writing for the sensemaking of CCCs, and listening and reading guidance for MLLs is less frequent.
Occasionally, the Personal Glossaries (explained in 1g.MLL-1 and 1g.MLL-2) include guidance and support for terms related to CCCs. For example, in Unit C.1, Unit Overview Materials, the section Guidance on Developing Your Personal Glossaries provides a chart with the lesson number, “Words with meanings we co-construct” and “Words with meanings we encounter”. The chart includes the words independent variable, dependent variable, system, input, and output, which are all cross-disciplinary vocabulary. In Lesson 3, the Handout Carbon Dioxide Investigation includes sentence stems to break down the variables. Specifically, the sentence stem “If the amount of carbon dioxide in the system increases, then the temperature of the system will ___” is provided to make predictions. When summarizing investigation findings, four additional sentence frames are provided. This guidance supports the CCC of Cause and Effect and provides support for cross-disciplinary language. An anchor chart, accompanied by teacher guidance to break down the terms independent and dependent variables in response to the investigation question, “How does carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affect temperature?” supports students’ language development within the lesson. However, the guidance misses an opportunity to help teachers make explicit cross-disciplinary connections beyond science.
There is some consideration for including MLL supports in key activities or concepts related to CCCs, but they may not be entirely adequate for grade-level participation of all MLLs. For example, students revisit, revise, and add to a conceptual model poster about the relationships between matter, energy, and forces across multiple units, primarily introduced in Unit C.2 and heavily revisited in Unit C.5. This Matter-Energy-Force chart is a key tool for developing CCCs around energy and matter, but MLL supports are not comprehensive. In Unit C.5, Unit Overview Materials, section titled, “What strategies are available to support equitable science learning in this unit?” there is guidance for the implementation of the multi-unit M-E-F poster. Specifically, it states, “Supporting emerging multilingual learners: Students may benefit from a brief word sort on cards to help clarify the relationships they are mapping back to the piston system. These words include: push, movement, heat, and pressure. Have students identify where each of these things occurs within the cylinder system, then add onto that by having them identify how each of these words explains one part of the M-E-F poster. Another option is to have students use the words in a sentence and use three different colored highlighters to show M-E-F thinking.” While the M-E-F poster offers a valuable ongoing visual for student thinking, the surrounding guidance lacks differentiation to address the diverse needs of students across varying levels of English proficiency. MLLs can not fully articulate their thinking without differentiated support.
Overall, the instructional materials provide foundational support for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to engage in sensemaking of Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs), particularly through structured discourse routines, embedded prompts, and multimodal representations. However, this support is often generalized and lacks the depth and differentiation needed to ensure full and equitable participation of all MLLs. While there are promising examples, such as the integration of sentence frames, glossaries, and visual models, these are applied inconsistently and are not always accompanied by explicit language supports that align with students’ varied proficiency levels. To fully meet the criteria, the materials would benefit from more consistent and intentional scaffolding that integrates both disciplinary understanding and language development across all modalities of learning.
Indicator 1h
Materials clearly represent three-dimensional learning objectives within the learning sequences.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet expectations that materials clearly represent three-dimensional learning objectives within the learning sequences.
Learning objectives are provided at the learning opportunity level. In this program, a learning opportunity is represented by a lesson. Within the lesson-level teacher guide, learning objectives are provided at the beginning in the What Students Will Do section. Lesson-level Performance Expectations are coded with numbers and letters (e.g. 4.A) and written as a statement. The statement is color coded to reflect the dimensions being addressed and codes indicating the elements contained within the statement are listed at the end. Across the materials, lesson-level learning objectives are consistently three dimensional. Additionally, within the unit-level teacher guide, element level information for the unit is provided in the Teacher Background Knowledge section. A table lists the element language of the SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs addressed in the unit, along with strikethroughs of element language as appropriate. This same type of information can also be found in the Elements of NGSS Dimensions document where tables are included that list the SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs addressed per lesson. Element language is also included with rationale that uses strikethroughs to indicate the part of the element addressed (for DCIs) or how the element shows up in the materials (for SEPs and CCCs). Within each lesson, the materials provide opportunities for students to use and engage with the elements of the three dimensions present in the objectives, but not consistently. In some cases, all elements from the learning objectives are addressed within the lesson. However, in several instances, students do not have the opportunity to engage with one or more of the elements from the learning objectives.
Examples of learning opportunities with three-dimensional learning objectives that provide opportunities for students to engage with some of the elements of the three dimensions present in the objectives, but do not address multiple elements from the objectives:
In Unit C.3, Lesson Set 3, Lesson 12: Which location(s) in the solar system has the elements we need and what relative amount is required to make any substance?, the learning objectives “Create balanced chemical equations (computational models) using mathematical representations of elements to demonstrate that matter is conserved.” and “Gather, read, and interpret information presented in different formats and adapted from scientific literature to predict which object in space (system) would contain the quantities (large scale) of elements and compounds (atomic scale) needed to create the resources for survival.”, are three dimensional. Students work as a class to balance the chemical reaction for photosynthesis using the principle of conservation of matter (DCI-PS1.B-H3, CCC-EM-H1). Students then work in partners to determine how many of each atom is needed to make one molecule of various substances, including steel, glass, and hardened cement. They use information from NASA websites to determine where on the moon or Mars these elements might be found. Students are provided with a reading adapted from a peer-reviewed research paper that provides additional information about the Mars rover findings, and they update their table of possible sources of materials to reflect the new information (SEP-INFO-H1). The lesson transitions to students working in partners to balance the equation for the reaction of calcium silicate and water in the process of cement formation. Students determine how much water would be needed to make cement using this process, then read an adaptation of a research paper about sulfur-based concrete and its applications for life on Mars (SEP-INFO-H1). While there are three-dimensional learning objectives and the lesson addresses elements of all three dimensions, the lesson does not address one SEP element and two CCC elements.
In Unit C.5, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 6: How does the amount of energy we put into the reaction system compare to the energy we get out?, the learning objective, “Develop and revise models based on evidence and use these to present and compare an argument for an explanation of where energy is transferred to and from and why energy is conserved within a system when bonds break and form.”, is three dimensional. Students observe a marble-ruler collision representing the breaking and forming of chemical bonds, then ask clarifying questions about the energy in the particles before and after the reaction. Students then use two different computer simulations to investigate the effect of different collision speed on the breaking and formation of bonds and the relationship between the strength of the field and the energy stored in the field (DCI-PS1.B-H1, DCI-PS3.C-H1, and CCC-EM-H2). Students model the energy in three different scenarios and apply their models to vehicle movement (SEP-MOD-H3). While there are three-dimensional learning objectives and the lesson addresses elements of all three dimensions, the lesson does not address one SEP and one CCC element.
In Unit C.4, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 4: What is it about a substance that determines whether it produces more o r fewer H+ or OH- ions when it is added to water?, the learning objectives, “Apply ratio thinking in the context of complicated measurement problems involving quantities with compound units (moles/L) to predict how the concentration of an acid or base dissolved in water will affect the pH of the solution.” and “Develop a particle-level model that connects the structure of different acids to the measured pH values that explains why those values vary for each acid.”, are three dimensional. Students make predictions about whether substances will be acids or bases based on their chemical structure, add acids to water and measure pH, then develop a model to explain why the same amount of different substances yielded different pH values (SEP-MOD-H3, CCC-SPQ-H1). Students work with models of molecules to develop an explanation for how the degree of dissociation is related to the structure of the molecule (CCC-SF-H2). While there are three-dimensional learning objectives, the lesson is two dimensional and does not address two DCI elements and one SEP element.
Examples of learning opportunities with three-dimensional learning objectives that provide opportunities for students to engage with the elements of the three dimensions present in the objectives:
In Unit C.1, Lesson Set 3, Lesson 11: How does heat affect the amount of ice melt?, the learning objectives, “Ask questions based on an existing model around how energy causes matter cycling in a system with conserved and transferred energy.”, and “Make a directional hypothesis about how much energy transfer must be prevented as part of a system design.”, are three dimensional. Students review what they learned in the previous lesson, including the equation for heat transfer. Students are then asked to develop an investigation question, identify variables in the procedure for the experiment, and write a hypothesis for the relationship they expect to see between heat transferred and the mass of ice melted (DCI-PS3.B-H1, SEP-AQDP-H2, and SEP-INV-H5). They conduct the experiment and collect data about the change in mass of the ice and the change in temperature of the water, and determine that 80 calories of heat are required to melt 1 gram of ice (CCC-EM-H4). They discuss how this information relates to sea level rise and the effectiveness of the berm system (CCC-SYS-H1).
In Unit C.2, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 6: What causes static in a lightning system?, the learning objective, “Critically read scientific literature adapted for classroom use to determine how static interactions at a different scale lead to lightning.”, is three dimensional. Students read a document adapted from a scientific paper about how lightning starts and respond to prompts about the information contained in each section and how it differs from other sections (SEP-INFO-H1). Students then discuss the buildup of static charges on ice crystals and water droplets within clouds and the resulting bolt of lightning that forms between the bottom of the cloud and the ground (DCI-PS2.B-H3). Finally, students discuss the difference in scale between the simulated lightning in the water dropper system and lightning that forms between a cloud and the ground (CCC-SPQ-H4).
In Unit C.3, Lesson Set 4, Lesson 13: Why can we recycle some of the substances we need and not others?, the learning objective, “Compare and integrate information about the molecular structure, substructures, and bonding patterns of various materials from a text, experimental videos, and a series of molecular models to answer two scientific questions: 1) recyclability as a function of matter’s interactions at the bulk scale, including atomic forces, and 2) how this informs new engineering solutions for living and working beyond and/or on Earth in the future.”, is three dimensional. Students discuss initial ideas about substances that can be recycled, then synthesize recycling information from a reading and two videos (SEP-INFO-H2). Students compare the molecular structures of several thermoplastics and connect polarity and properties of thermoplastics to construct explanations of their properties. They explore the molecular properties of a thermoset and its strength and melting point. Students then compare thermoplastics and thermoset at the particle level when they are heated (DCI-PS1.A-H3). Additional polymers are introduced and evaluated at the molecular level then students synthesize their information to evaluate the additional polymers for future sustainable polymer research. Students identify candidates for future replacement with more sustainable materials (DCI-ESS3.C-H2, CCC-SF-H2).
Indicator 1i
Materials include a formative assessment system that is designed to reveal student progress on targeted learning objectives.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials include a formative assessment system that is designed to reveal student progress on targeted learning objectives.
Formative assessments exist across each unit, in various lessons, as appropriate. In some instances, there is more than one assessment per lesson but a formative assessment does not exist for every lesson. Assessment opportunities are indicated in the Assessment System Overview table in the unit-level teacher materials and also in the lesson-level teacher guide with a check mark icon in the Learning Plan Snapshot. Assessment Opportunity boxes within the teacher guide provide information about what to look and listen for during the assessment as well as what to do if students struggle. The learning objective(s) that students are building toward is also indicated. In some cases, a separate key also exists for the assessment. The content of the key varies based on the assessment and may include suggested student responses, the elements being addressed, and ideas for support. Formative assessments can take a variety of forms and include exit tickets, model revisions, card sorts, gotta have it checklists, information organizers, data analysis, and other ways to check in on student understanding as they make progress within the lesson. Some formative assessments are individual while others are completed as a group. Overall, the formative assessments consistently reveal student progress on the targeted learning objectives. In some cases, when a large number of elements are represented within the learning objectives, elements claimed in the learning objectives are not addressed by the single formative assessment within the respective lesson. Additional types of assessments present within the assessment system include summative assessments, pre-assessments, self-assessments, peer assessments, and returns to the Driving Question Boards and Progress Trackers.
Examples of formative assessments that are designed to reveal student progress on the targeted learning objectives:
In Unit C.2, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 8: How can something that is neutral have an attractive or repulsive interaction with another object without any contact?, the learning objective is “Use multiple models to explain patterns observed at different scales in the behavior of uncharged objects when a charged object exerts a force on them.” and represents a total of four elements: one DCI, one SEP, and two CCCs. The formative assessment is the Lightning Polarization assessment. Students use words and images to provide details about atomic and subatomic interactions (electrons, charge, and polarization) and how these interactions contribute to lightning moving toward and striking the ground (DCI-PS1.A-H3). Students use their experiences with a computer simulation and their own paper clip models to explain their thinking (SEP-MOD-H4). In the teacher guidance, students should “describe lightning’s behavior as similar to the patterns observed in the simulation and modeled at the subatomic scale with index cards” (CCC-PAT-H1, CCC-SPQ-H3).
In Unit C.3, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 5: How can we tell what is in the atmosphere (and just below the surface) of objects in space?, the learning objective is “Analyze, compare, and integrate empirical evidence to identify patterns in the interaction (study) of a star’s light or other light spectrum with substances present in a sample or on an object in space to answer scientific questions about how we can identify which locations have the substances or elements needed to live and work in space.” and represents a total of five elements: two DCIs, two SEPs, and one CCC. The formative assessment is the Analyze Atmospheric Spectra assessment. Students use graphs of light spectra to identify the gases present on Earth, Mars, Venus, and Enceladus (moon of Saturn) (DCI-ESS1.A-H2, DCI-PS4.B-H4). They analyze the graphs and compare them to patterns from the Transmission Spectra Library to determine the presence of gasses then use the patterns on the graph to make a claim about their presence. (SEP-DATA-H1, SEP-INFO-H2, and CCC-PAT-H5).
In Unit C.4, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 9: How much NaOH would we need to add to make ocean water safe for oysters?, the learning objective is “Use a mathematical model to calculate the amounts of reactants for desired products, assuming conservation of matter, across scales from molecular to lab-measurable quantities.”, and represents a total of three elements: one DCI, one SEP, and one CCC. The formative assessment is the Ocean Water Calculations assessment. Students apply a neutralization reaction equation to complete multiple conversion equations involving complex units to determine the moles of OH- necessary to neutralize the H+ in a 1000L oyster tank at a healthy pH (DCI-PS1.B-H3, SEP-MATH-H5). Calculations span different scales, from molecular measurements to physically measurable quantities (CCC-SPQ-H1).
Indicator 1j
Materials include a summative assessment system designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of student achievement of claimed assessment standards.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials include a summative assessment system designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of student achievement of claimed assessment standards.
Summative assessments exist across each unit, mostly in the form of Transfer Tasks and Electronic Exit Tickets. Transfer Tasks take place at the end of a lesson set and/or unit and consist of multiple parts, often with some sort of scenario that students work with. Responses can include multiple choice as well as developing models, critiquing arguments, analyzing data, and constructing explanations. Electronic Exit Tickets are spread throughout the unit, usually at the end of lessons. They are delivered through a Google Form and usually consist of 5-6 questions in the form of multiple choice and short answers. Students respond to content related questions as well as reflection on their own learning. Assessment opportunities are indicated in the Assessment System Overview table in the unit-level teacher materials and also in the lesson-level teacher guide with a check mark icon in the Learning Plan Snapshot. A separate key exists for all Transfer Tasks and Electronic Exit Tickets. The keys contain information about the elements addressed per assessment question, suggested student responses, and what to look for. In the Transfer Task keys, the what to look for is split into three categories of responses: Foundational understanding, Linked understanding, and Organized understanding, and includes suggestions for instruction on how to move students forward in their learning. The Electronic Exit Ticket keys contain what to look for suggested responses per question as well as a what to do section if students need additional support.
The materials consistently identify the standards assessed for summative assessments. Within the unit-level teacher guide, the Lesson-by-Lesson Assessment Opportunities table lists each lesson, the lesson-level Performance Expectation(s) (PE), and assessment guidance including when to check for understanding around each of the lesson-level PEs. Summative assessments are called out in this table, as appropriate, usually with references to a key for that summative assessment. The Assessment Opportunity boxes within the lesson-level teacher guide also contain information about the PE(s) addressed by each assessment, usually with reference to the assessment key. All claimed summative assessment elements are assessed within the materials. However, there are differences between the claimed NGSS elements for learning, within the lesson-level PEs, and the claimed NGSS elements for summative assessments. Across the materials, each claimed DCI, SEP, and CCC component (such as PS3 or MOD) contains at least one claimed summative element, with the exception of the DCIs for ESS1: Earth’s Place in the Universe and PS4: Waves and Their Applications in Technologies for Information Transfer. For DCIs and CCCs, over half of the claimed elements for learning are summatively claimed and assessed, while for SEPs, less than half of the claimed elements for learning are summatively claimed and assessed.
Examples of the types of summative assessments present in the materials:
In Unit C.1, Lesson Set 3, Lesson 13: How can we model what will happen to Earth's climate if humans make changes?, the summative assessment is the Heat Pumps Transfer Task. In this assessment, students are presented with information about heat pumps and respond to a series of prompts to explain how the system works and design tests to troubleshoot a faulty heat pump. Students are presented with a diagram of a heat pump. They define the heat pump system (CCC-SYS-H1, CCC-SYS-H2) and consider where energy is coming into and out of the system (CCC-EM-H2, SEP-MOD-H4). Students show the transfer of energy in both the evaporator and the condenser (DCI-PS3.B-H2, DCI-PS3.D-H4) and explain, from a particle level, why warm air in one part of a room causes the whole room to heat up (DCI-PS3.B-H5). Students engage with a scenario of diagnosing and repairing a malfunctioning heat pump system, construct a hypothesis about where the problem is occurring (SEP-INV-H5), and plan an investigation to determine whether their proposed repair has fixed the heat pump (SEP-INV-H2).
In Unit C.3, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 4: How and why do water and other liquids interact with materials to make surface features?, the summative assessment is the L4 Electronic Exit Ticket. In this assessment, students respond to a series of multiple choice and free response questions on a Google Form about the relationship between polarity and macroscopic interactions, as well as their learning from the lesson. Students are asked about the relationship between molecular polarity and interactions between different liquids and surface materials (DCI-PS1.A-H3). Students also use color-coded molecular models showing polarity (SEP-MOD-H4) to determine which molecule’s structure would make it most likely to cause erosion or frost heaving (CCC-SF-H2).
In Unit C.5, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 8: How does our understanding of carbon-based fuels inform our decision-making?, the summative assessment is the Cold Pack Transfer Task. In this assessment, students are presented with information about cold packs and respond to a series of prompts about the chemical processes in cold packs. Students are provided a scenario in which ice packs must be used. They explain the chemical process and flow of energy (DCI-PS1.A-H4, DCI-PS1.B-H1) that happens within ice packs and use models in the form of drawings, equations, and graphs to illustrate the interactions between the reactants and products in the ice pack system. Students use these models to show bonds breaking and forming, particle-level kinetic energy changes over time, and how energy is conserved as it transfers and causes temperature changes (SEP-MOD-H3, CCC-EM-H1, and CCC-EM-H2).
Indicator 1k
Materials are designed to include three-dimensional assessments that incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems.
The instructional materials meet expectations for being designed to incorporate three-dimensional assessments that incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems.
Within the materials, assessments that incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems are mainly present within the summative transfer tasks. These assessments take place at the end of a lesson set and/or end of the unit, with at least one transfer task in each unit. Students engage with an uncertain phenomenon or problem at the beginning of the assessment through a reading, data, graphs, etc. and then work through a multi-part assessment to answer questions about the uncertain phenomenon or problem. Multiple choice and short answer response types are included. Other student activities within the assessment include modeling, critiquing an argument, constructing an explanation, etc. Other assessments with uncertain phenomena include some exit tickets (identified as formative or summative) and other formative assessments connected to lesson ideas which ask students to extend their thinking to a new aspect of the phenomenon or problem through modeling or calculations. All assessments that contain an uncertain phenomenon or problem are also three dimensional and across the assessment system, most assessments are two or three dimensional.
Examples of assessments that integrate the three dimensions and incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems:
In Unit C.1, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 7: How do feedback loops affect Earth’s systems?, the summative assessment is the Thawing Permafrost Transfer Task. In this unit, students explore the phenomenon of sea level rise in coastal areas. In this assessment, students apply what they have learned through engagement with feedback loops associated with sea level rise to describe the feedback loops involved in the thawing permafrost system. Students are presented with a model of the impacts of permafrost thaw, describe a feedback loop involving permafrost and at least two earth systems, and determine whether the feedback loop is positive or negative (DCI-ESS2.A-H1, CCC-SC-H3). Students then ask questions to clarify how an additional piece of information would affect the permafrost model (SEP-AQDP-H4).
In Unit C.3, Lesson Set 4, Lesson 15: What is the full impact of going to space?, the summative assessment is the Unit Assessment Transfer Task. In this unit, students explore the problem of human space travel and settlements on areas besides Earth. In this assessment, students apply what they have learned through engagement with the space travel problem to investigate the formation of soap scum. After reading about and viewing images of soap scum and hard water, students develop a model that illustrates what is happening at the molecular level, including partial charges on water molecules, to cause soap scum formation (DCI-PS1.B-H3, SEP-MOD-H3). Students then apply the principles of conservation of matter, electronegativity patterns from the periodic table, and ionic and covalent bonding to balance the chemical equation for the formation of calcium stearate (soap scum) and construct a series of explanations for the interaction of hard water and several compounds found in soaps (DCI-PS1.A-H1, DCI-PS1.A-H2, DCI-PS1.B-H3, SEP-CEDS-H2, and CCC-PAT-H1).
In Unit C.4, Lesson Set 3, Lesson 15: How can we apply our learning to other situations?, the summative assessment is the Ammonia Fertilizer Transfer Task. In this unit, students explore the problem of oyster die off in the Pacific Northwest. In this assessment, students apply what they have learned through engagement with the oyster problem to investigate the Haber-Bosch process as a way to produce more fertilizer. Students use what they know about reversible reactions to support a particle-level explanation for how a chosen production strategy would lead to a shift in the equilibrium of ammonia production and maximize fertilizer production (DCI-PS1.B-H1, DCI-PS1.B-H2, SEP-CEDS-H3, and CCC-CE-H2). Then, students use models, chemical formulas, and calculations to illustrate how one of two possible strategies can be used to increase the rate of reaction to make ammonia production happen more quickly (DCI-PS1.B-H1, DCI-PS1.B-H3, SEP-MOD-H3, SEP-MATH-H2, CCC-CE-H2, and CCC-SPQ-H1). Finally, students make and explain a claim about which criteria related to fertilizer production should be prioritized in the face of an environmental constraint to a design solution (DCI-ETS1.C-H1, SEP-ARG-H5, and CCC-EM-H2).